masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Human Looter
Delete Proposal Although it has been decided that every enemy should have a page. In this case it seem redundant and forced. There is nothing that can be said about the enemy, confrontation, or no tactical advice can be given. --silverstrike 07:11, January 2, 2011 (UTC) :Oppose the delete nomination. It's valid information. I just read the entire article, and didn't see any redundancy. Maybe some repetition of the phrases "looters" and "looting", but similar repetition occurs in most adversary articles. The article might come across as a bit forced, but if you think so, rewrite it. Don't just delete it. The reason given for nomination seems extremely subjective and opinionated. One could just as easily use it to put pretty much any adversary article up for deletion. As such, I strenuously oppose deleting a valid article that, near as I can tell, serves its purpose admirably. SpartHawg948 18:14, January 3, 2011 (UTC) ::What else is there to say about them that cannot be said inside the relevant mission/assignment page (Dossier: The Professor in this case)? The only information we have on them is that they can be fought, they lack any kind of protection, and that they are armed with a pistol. They have no weight on the story and the fight with them is pretty strait forward. I understand it's a subjective issue, but I can't find the real reason to have a page on those types of content (unless I misunderstood your meaning of their relevance). --silverstrike 18:32, January 3, 2011 (UTC) :::They are potential adversaries, are they not? That alone is a real reason to have the page. Again, your logic (there is nothing that can't be said about them on the relevant mission page) could be applied to numerous adversaries. Your reason for proposing deletion is 100% subjective, and that isn't good enough when we're talking about a page that does meet objective standards. SpartHawg948 18:54, January 3, 2011 (UTC) ::::I checked myself (went through random pages in the adversaries categories to see their relevance) and I noticed that there are some pages like this with minimal information (I don't want to use the term redundant or any other subjective term). If I understood you correctly (and correct me if I'm wrong), those pages should stay because they describe actual character that are encountered throughout the series even though the information on them is minimal. In that case, do you see anything more that can be added to those articles (by that I mean as a general guideline and not something specific to this one)? --silverstrike 19:24, January 3, 2011 (UTC) :::::You're still not understanding me correctly, it seems. It's not that they are characters that are encountered in the series. As I have made clear during many a delete discussion, just being a character in the game does not make up for little or no information. If these were just characters, I'd be all for deleting, because there isn't enough information for a character page. There is, however, more than enough information for an adversary page, which is fortunate, since these guys are potential adversaries. That's why I oppose deletion. Not because they are characters, but because they are adversaries, and we established a standard some time ago of maintaining pages for all adversaries. SpartHawg948 19:30, January 3, 2011 (UTC) ::::::I think I understood you correctly (that, or I'm especially obtuse today), we should have a page for each adversary encountered - as long as there's the possibility of fighting him, the page should remain. Although I don't fully agree with this, I accept your (and the other contributors) judgment. But from your response I see a double standard (no offense meant) - if we have a page for an adversary that can be killed with two shots from a pistol (according to the article), then why should any other character be any different? Would you support the deletion of this page if the opportunity to fight did not exist? --silverstrike 00:42, January 4, 2011 (UTC) Oppose deletion. I'm on Spart's side here. I don't see how we can take exception with this article about a particular enemy and not also find similar reasonable fault in others. And while I'm usually what is termed a "deletionist", when it comes to subjects like enemies, I think we should be as comprehensive as possible. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:18, January 3, 2011 (UTC) :I too oppose deletion. As has been said previously in this talk page, there is enough info to warrant an adversaries page. And, if we want to be as perfect a guide for all things Mass Effect as we can, we should have a page on these guys, however minor they may be. Arbington 23:38, January 3, 2011 (UTC) ::Apologies for the tardy response. First day back in classes and all that. To answer Silverstrike's last question, yes. I would indeed support deletion if the option of fighting these guys didn't exist. Were that the case, they would not be adversaries, and would instead be extremely minor characters who wouldn't merit a page. SpartHawg948 06:47, January 4, 2011 (UTC) :::Not that I think that those characters by themselves merit an article, but why fighting them make them important? Most of the articles on adversaries are full of information about tactics, their protections and armaments, some background story, and description about the character itself (and most can be encountered in many fights). --silverstrike 12:02, January 4, 2011 (UTC) The deletion proposal fails 1-3. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:52, January 12, 2011 (UTC) :Not failed. The proposition didn't pass (which is not the same, in my opinion anyway) and were all happy for contributing to make the wiki a better place. --silverstrike 00:42, January 13, 2011 (UTC) ::No, it definitely failed to pass. Nominations either pass or they fail, that's pretty much the only two outcomes of a proposal. At least, the only two known to me. SpartHawg948 00:43, January 13, 2011 (UTC) :::Maybe it's just me, but "fail" means that someone losses or comes out of the conversation less then when he entered it (it's a semantic issue). I don't feel like I or anyone else come out from this proposal/discussion as a lesser contributor, we all do what we can to make the wiki better - no harsh words were exchanged and no one came out feeling like he made a mistake commenting here. And again it could be just my association to the word "failed"... --silverstrike 00:53, January 13, 2011 (UTC) ::::Gotcha. I totally get what you're saying. I was using "fail" more in the context of the proposal itself, not the parties supportive of or opposed to it, but I totally see where you're coming from. And I agree. I think that the description you gave above is ideally how all such proposals should end. Sometimes they don't, but that just makes ones that do (like this one) that much better. SpartHawg948 01:20, January 13, 2011 (UTC)